Some Things Are Just Too Inexpensive to NOT Buy

When my eye exam last Friday revealed a hole in my left retina, I initially decided not to get new glasses just yet. While my prescription has changed slightly, I get by with my current glasses, and there's at least some chance the surgery I expect will change my prescription yet again.*

On the other hand, I have no idea how long it will be before I get to actually see a specialist and schedule whatever procedure is recommended (or chosen).

So I decided to check out prices at my two preferred online sellers of frames and lenses, EyeBuyDirect and Zeelool. Those are referral links and if you use them you'll get some kind of discount and I will receive points toward my future orders. I've bought multiple pairs of glasses from each company and have never had any complaints with the quality.

Note to "Buy American!" trolls: About 90% of the eyeglass frames sold in the US are made in China, and another 5% are made in other non-US countries. As best I can tell, both EyeBuyDirect and Zeelool use Chinese frames. It's also my impression (based on tracking shipments) that Zeelool grinds the lenses in, and ships the glasses directly from, China, while EyeBuyDirect seems to do the lenses in, and ship from, the US.

Once I saw the price of a pair I wanted at EyeBuyDirect, I decided it was worth going ahead with a new pair. Total cost, including frames, prescription lenses, sales taxes, and shipping: $21.90. Both companies almost always have some frames in the $10 to $15 range, with basic prescription lenses included. You'll pay more if you want higher-grade lenses, tints, etc., but I think the most anyone in my household has paid for glasses from either place is about $40. I happen to like round glasses, so I went with a frame not coincidentally called "Potter."

* According to the web, there are three types of procedures for repairing a retinal hole. For a small hole (which mine seems to be), they'll use a laser or cryogenic instrument to tighten up the tissue around the hole so that it shuts. For a larger hole, the procedure is called a vitrectomy. It involves putting a gas bubble around the hole, after which the patient is required, among other life/work interferences, to remain face down, 24/7, for about two weeks. I know someone who had to have it done twice because the first time didn't work. If I'm told I require a vitrectomy, I will push for a fourth type of procedure: Just taking the eye out, either immediately or when/if the hole becomes a retinal tear. I'm pushing 60 and have no desire to give up a month of my life just to save half of my poor vision.

Wordle 1864 Hint

Hint: Pretender.

Not Enough? Get the first letter of today's Wordle after the ad below.

New to Wordle? You can play it at the New York Times, and here are some thoughts on how I go about solving each day's puzzle.

First Letter: P

Grain of Salt, But ...

According to The Telegraph (and other sources):

Donald Trump has paused plans to escalate the war on Iran after being warned that the US is running low on missiles.

For the first time in nearly two weeks, the US president called off strikes on the Islamic Republic over the weekend and has set aside plans to return to major combat operations.

I normally take claims of munitions shortages with a huge grain of salt.

In the 1950s, a supposed "bomber gap" versus the Soviet Union was used to justify more US military spending.

In the 1960, the "bomber gap" became a "missile gap" in general and an "anti-ballistic missile gap" in particular.

For the last four years, various parties have claimed the US is in the grip of "severe munitions shortages" as a reason to stop sending stuff to Ukraine ... even as the US military continually promoted various iterations of "the largest live-fire exercise EVAH!" in, among other places, the Pacific Rim region.

So, at a longer-term strategic level, I consider such "shortage" claims as mostly Baghdad Bob stuff.

But this is seems to be a shorter-term claim and that makes it a little more believable. "Yeah, we need to get more interceptors over there before we give the Iranians an excuse to come at us."

Logistics -- the ability to get the stuff where you need it to be, when you need it to be there -- is what wins or loses wars.

And one of the few military advantages the Iranian regime has in this particular war is that it doesn't have to to spend three weeks shipping ordnance 10,000 miles by sea to put it where it's needed.

On the other hand, ever since World War 2 the US regime has been excellent at delivering the goods across oceans quickly. There are always problems (during Desert Storm, my unit was on short rations for a couple of weeks because they had to prioritize the delivery of bullets over delivering beans in case things blew up suddenly), but those problems get solved (by the time the war ended we were getting reasonably good hot chow twice a day, MREs one meal a day, and had all kinds of extra stuff, from pallets of canned peanut butter to cases of "sous vide" vacuum-sealed dinners -- I lost about 20 pounds early but gained 10 pounds back before coming home).

Of course, this could be a ruse ("let's try to bait them into attacking and then surprise them"), but if it's the truth it's not likely catastrophic, or even a sign of some avoidable failure.